ELDP Capital Planning White Paper_20130130

Building Tools for Capital Planning
January 2013
White Paper & Recommendations
Project Sponsors:
Hari Sastry
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Resources Management
Justin Meservie
Senior Director for Performance and Business Process Improvement
January 2013
Department of Commerce Action Learning Project 3
Executive Leadership Development Program (ELDP)
Class of 2013

Capital Asset Planning Recommendations 2013
FOUO – Internal Use Only Page 2
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................... 4
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................. 5
MANDATE & METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................................... 5
CAPITAL PLANNING WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE .................................................................... 6
Why is this important?.................................................................................................................................. 6
Circumstances Necessitating Urgent Change............................................................................................... 8
DOC Practices for Inventory Systems ............................................................................................................... 9
Acquisitions............................................................................................................................................... 9
Overall challenges................................................................................................................................... 11
OTHER AGENCIES............................................................................................................................................ 13
Analysis of Best Practices........................................................................................................................ 16
ALP Team Recommendations......................................................................................................................... 17
Phase 1 Recommendation.......................................................................................................................... 17
Phase 2 Recommendation.......................................................................................................................... 19
Roles applicable to both Phase 1 and Phase 2: .......................................................................................... 20
Expected Value ........................................................................................................................................... 21
Next Steps – People & Portal.......................................................................................................................... 22
Procedures/People ..................................................................................................................................... 22
Marketing & Communication ..................................................................................................................... 22
Technology/Tools........................................................................................................................................ 23
People – Sharing Best Practices.................................................................................................................. 23
Prototype Dashboard Development........................................................................................................... 23
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................................... 29
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................ 30
Appendices ..................................................................................................................................................... 31
Appendix 1 – AIP Framework...................................................................................................................... 31
Appendix 2 – RP4 Framework..................................................................................................................... 32
Appendix 3 – Commerce Way..................................................................................................................... 33
Appendix 4 – Coast Guard Cornerstone Document ................................................................................... 34
Appendix 5 – Veterans Administration Organizational Chart..................................................................... 52
Appendix 6 – OMB Capital Planning Lifecycle ............................................................................................ 53
Appendix 7 – Inventory Best Practice Highlights........................................................................................ 54
Appendix 8 – Best Practices References..................................................................................................... 63

Lists of Figures
Figure 1 – Approximate breakdown of Department of Commerce annual budget. ........................................ 6
Figure 2 - 2012 Snapshot of Capital Planning Projects in DOC......................................................................... 7
Figure 3 – Current DOC Information Flow...................................................................................................... 12
Figure 4 - Phase 1 Recommendation using existing systems ......................................................................... 18
Figure 5 - Phase 2 Recommendation with integrated asset management .................................................... 19
Figure 6 – Expected Value of phased change ................................................................................................. 21
Figure 7 - Source systems feeding the USASpending.gov web site................................................................ 24
Figure 8 - The evolution of information from flat files to performance dashboard....................................... 25
Figure 9 - Performance dashboard by asset type and bureau ....................................................................... 26
Figure 10 - Performance dashboard by asset type, year and bureau ............................................................ 27
Figure 11 - Performance dashboard showing facilities investments.............................................................. 28
Lists of Tables
Table 1 - Sources of data supporting the prototype capital planning dashboard.......................................... 24

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BUILDING TOOLS FOR CAPITAL PLANNING
The Department of Commerce (DOC) is a complex agency with diverse assets and objectives.
While much of what the department is known for is delivered via data and people, the organization
relies on the effective use of its capital assets in order to complete its mission. Streamlining of the
Department‘s processes and transparent access to asset data are crucial.
The ELDP team assigned to this project was tasked with developing an ―online portal that houses
all of the relevant information to build and maintain a capital plan for the department.‖ During the
research phase of the project, through interviews with stakeholders within the DOC as well as with
agencies that face similar capital planning challenges, the team determined that technology alone is
not the answer. The key to a successful capital asset management system that will enable the
Department to better leverage resources is to focus on the human component that will bridge the
communication gap between operational units and develop a common language across the bureaus.
In order to efficiently and strategically plan for, invest in, use, and divest of capital assets
particularly in light of continuing unstable and limited resource allocations, the DOC must task
human and IT resources to:
I. Create and implement processes and tools to support integrated DOC Enterprise Asset
Management
II. Develop, Test and Implement a Capital Asset Portal and database IT tool
III. Train and Engage DOC operating units at the Bureau and Department level in the usage
of these tools

INTRODUCTION
MANDATE & METHODOLOGY
In November 2012, a team of eight participants in the 2013 Executive Leadership Development
Program (ELDP) accepted the assignment to develop an ―online portal that houses all of the
relevant information to build and maintain a capital plan for the department.‖ The purpose of the
portal is to provide management all the requisite information for business enterprise management
of the Department of Commerce‘s (DOC) capital assets.
The ELDP team conducted extensive research on how the DOC and other U.S. government
agencies manage capital assets. DOC leadership was generous with their time as the ELDP team
worked to develop an understanding of the current capital asset management practices at the
Department of Commerce. Over a two month period, the ELDP team interviewed senior officials
in the DOC Bureaus; Acquisitions, Information Technology (IT) and Facilities leadership; budget
and strategic planning officials in the Secretary‘s office as well as bureau level budget and asset
management personnel. Outside of the DOC, the team conducted extensive internet research and
reached out to other USG agencies that face similar capital planning challenges including the Coast
Guard, the Department of Veterans‘ Affairs and the Department of Defense.
This White Paper presents the team‘s recommendations for a new approach to coordinated capital
asset management at the DOC. These recommendations encourage two-way communication to
better inform the capital asset management process and enable the decision makers to have the best
information to implement a business enterprise system that transparently reflects Department of
Commerce‘s missions and strategic plan.
The ELDP team appreciates the opportunity to contribute recommendations to Commerce
leadership on this high profile, high priority project.
Team Members Bureaus
Danny Alley NIST
Maria Cameron ITA
David Charbonneau Census
Michiko Martin NOAA
Carlos Rivero NOAA
Mary Rudokas EDA
Audrey Story Census
Gilberto Vicente NOAA

CAPITAL PLANNING WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Created in 1903, as the DOC and Labor, the
DOC has evolved over the past 110 years into a
leading agency for economic growth with 13
major Bureaus, 141,000 employees (2010) and
an annual budget of approximately $8 billion
(2012). These Bureaus are highly diverse but
share the same long range mission.
Nevertheless, despite ongoing efforts to unify
the Department into one cohesive agency, the
Bureaus function largely as independent entities
and the capital asset planning, budgeting,
inventory and accounting systems remain
separate.
Why is this important?
As Figure 1 depicts, approximately half of the
department‘s $8 billion budget is dedicated to
human capital, and 15% is granted to external
organizations. The remaining 35% is used to
purchase some category of departmental asset.
Figure 2 further highlights the magnitude of the
funds dedicated to capital assets in DOC. Of
approximated $4.2 billion, half of the funds are
invested in 18 capital projects (3% of the total
number) which fall under the Milestone Review
Board (MRB) oversight. The remaining $2.2
billion, or 97% of the projects, fall under the
MRB threshold of $75 million for assets or $40
million for facilities, and therefore do not qualify for
MRB oversight. Important to note, the 18 projects that do receive MRB oversight are not
examined holistically in relation to each other or the remaining 620 projects but rather are managed
separately, within their own ―functional area‖, i.e. through the IT, Facilities or Acquisitions
process.
Salaries and
Other Balances
38%
Govt FTE Support
for Contracted
Programs
8%
Contracting (Non-
IT + Purchase
Card)
19%
Contracting (IT
Only)
7%
NASA MOU for
Satellites
13%
Grants
15%
The Department of Commerce
creates the conditions for
economic growth and opportunity
by promoting innovation,
entrepreneurship, competitiveness
and stewardship.
Figure 1 – Approximate breakdown of Department of
Commerce annual budget.

DOC needs a process and associated tools to help executive decision makers evaluate tradeoffs
between various projects that would be in play in the 2-3 year Federal budgeting cycle as well as
on the strategic plan expanded horizon. DOC also needs the capability to respond with agility to a
re-alignment of Department priorities/mission requirements in the short and long term. The
development of transparent, standardized and flexible processes and tools for capital asset
management will assist in ensuring capital asset funds are programmed or reprogrammed on the
short and long term:
 Based upon equivalently and temporally defined and validated information and metrics;
 Aligned with DOC mission requirements;
 In compliance with DOC statutory and regulatory authority and policies; and,
 In keeping with audit procedures of both internal and external entities.
In particular, a well-defined Capital Asset Management enterprise process and IT tool will meet the
need to leverage asset inventory, purchases and capital planning across bureaus (i.e. - strategic
sourcing, asset sharing, etc.) In order to create leverage across the Department and maximize the
use of its funds, the Department needs to know the planned acquisitions in the short (12 month),
medium (2-4 year) and long (5-10 year) terms. The process must have checkpoints to ensure
capital asset purchases align with the budget profile and strategic plan. Currently, the existing 5
year budget profile does not address capital planning components. One checkpoint that must be
emphasized is that before purchasing assets, a needs-assessment should be completed that
Figure 2 - 2012 Snapshot of Capital Planning Projects in DOC.

elucidates why assets are essential and related to mission success. As part of this critical capital
enterprise management system check, the bureau must define the capital asset value, risk and
impact to the mission. Recent changes in the Government Performance & Results Modernization
Act (GPRA) in 2010 require better linkages between budgets and planning. A new capital planning
process supported by a database tool will enable the Department to meet these requirements and
provide decision makers with the information they need.
Circumstances Necessitating Urgent Change
Efficiency - Under the current economic crisis and budget environment Agencies will be held to a
higher standard for budget requests. It is critically important that agencies function more
cohesively and make better use of assets across bureaus in order to manage past a cost baseline.
The Commerce Department does not currently implement a process that integrates planning,
investing, using and divesting decisions to better align capital assets with missions. Therefore it is
difficult to implement capital asset management that leverages across bureaus to meet the
Department‘s shrinking/unstable budget and resources as well as meet its mandates. The DOC‘s
strategic resources are often hidden in documentation that make it difficult to recognize assets and
facilities or may not even be well documented and only available through institutional memory and
extensive interviews. This initiative will position the Department to develop a portfolio of options
from which the Department can adapt capital assets to meet changing mission and budgetary
requirements leading eventually to a more flexible and agile implementation of the Department‘s
mission.
Commerce Way - A final driver is the Department wide effort embodied in the Commerce Way
which seeks to integrate DOC strategic planning and performance. One phase of it has recently
been adopted through the Acquisition Improvement Process (AIP) to mitigate risks in acquisitions.
The AIP provides for focus on high visibility capital asset acquisitions. The development and
implementation of a capital asset management process and tool, which provides visibility into this
asset‘s value, risk and impact, will directly meet and address the requirements of the AIP (see
Appendices).
Vision: Right Asset, Right Place, Right Time, Right Cost

DOC Practices for Inventory Systems
The team conducted research within the DOC, meeting with executives from across the functional
areas. We found that often within an organization, more than one system or technological solution
is required to address properly all informational requirements. We found this to be true in DOC,
where various functional areas have developed their own data collection methodology, data
warehouses and reporting mechanisms.
Acquisitions
Process: Acquisition actions in the form of contracts rise to the department level based on the
value of the contract or the visibility of the project with most contracts not resulting in a capital
asset. Currently, there is no department-wide understanding of what a capital asset is and what
data elements should be reported on capital assets. As a result, the acquisitions office, at the
department level, does not have the data it needs to track procurements that result in capital assets
in a consistent way. Projects are categorized as one of the following: ‗IT‘, ‗Non-IT‘, or ‗Satellites‘.
Data for the IT systems come from the eCPIC database and from attending Commerce Information
Technology Review Board (CITRB) meetings. Satellite procurements are high visibility projects
that get tracked individually because of the expense and nature of the satellite program. Non-IT
procurements are the area with the least visibility and only rise to the department level based on the
above criteria of dollar value or visibility.
Challenges: There is no linkage between budget planning and budget execution – execution
depends on bureaus. In addition, there is a lack of an overarching strategic plan for acquisition of
high value capital assets. The one year budget cycle discourages and even prevents planning. In
addition, procurement data silos do not speak a common language – so there is no common
definition for what constitutes a ―capital asset‖. Finally, it can often be difficult to track whether a
series of procurements may ultimately result in a high value capital asset.
Facilities
Process: Commerce is currently trying to implement a Business Application Systems (BAS)
where the CFO/CIO has a portfolio management of budget, finance, property and
acquisitions. Facilities portfolio will include the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs and a
space baseline (Net Zero footprint). This is concurrent with the BFIP (Budget Formulation
Improvement Process) and the AIP (Acquisition Improvement Process) which are both under the
umbrella of the Commerce Way. Federal Real Property Management System/Federal Real
Property Profile (FRPM/FRPP) is used to capture overall facilities data for DOC. NIST and
NOAA both have separate systems for internal tracking. Facilities has well grounded view of risk
associated with its capital asset portfolio based on a facilities status index evaluative system, but
there are missing connections between performance goals and measures in the overall strategic
planning process. The Office of Administrative Services (OAS) is planning to implement a new
model using RP4 (Real Property Portfolio Planning Process) to link the planning, budgeting, and
execution, with data for facilities management. Facilities has taken steps toward this integrated
view by creating a basis for this planning process through the development of a computer off the
shelf package to provide a ―one-shot‖ static view of facilities, cost and current status.

Challenges: The biggest challenge facing the facilities capital planning process is reluctance
across DOC to identify what facilities or properties are needed for the out years across agencies
because of ‗zero-growth‘ mandates.
Procurement
Process: The procurement team at the department wishes to be included in the planning process as
early as possible. Currently, they receive the procurement request approximately eight to nine
months after the initiation of the purchase plan. The department procurement team would prefer to
be as proactive as possible to be able to plan their market research, conduct the 30-day
solicitations, and process the procurement requests effectively and efficiently. Although the
procurement team has access to the Forecasting and Advanced Acquisitions Planning System
(FAAPS), there is a general belief by the department‘s procurement staff that the data records are
not as complete as they should be and only a handful of bureaus are utilizing the system.
Currently, the procurement staff sends out a data call to the bureaus between February and March
with a reporting deadline of June 30th
. The bureaus submit a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet
describing the planned procurements for the following fiscal year. These spreadsheets are
consolidated by department staff for further processing and oversight. At this time, the
procurement staff tracks all projects that are more than $75M, provide oversight for projects greater
than $50M, and monitor high-visibility/high-impact/high-risk projects between the $10M and
$50M range.
The procurement process is well documented in the Commerce Acquisitions Manual which
references the Procurement Administrative Lead Time (PALT). This is a pre-defined measure of
the amount of time (in days) that it takes to process a procurement based on its total dollar amount.
There are three phases to the procurement process (pre-award, solicitation, and post-award).
Initially, bureau program offices submit procurement requests; the procurement office conducts
market research, requests solicitations from vendors, and ultimately awards the contract. Data
from the process is ultimately stored within the Federal Procurement Data System (Next
Generation) (FPDS-NG). The FPDS-NG is used to feed the USASpending.gov web site which
consolidates spending data throughout the government for public access. It is also important to
note that data from FAAPS is also publicly available through the Federal Interagency Databases
Online site at fido.gov/doc.
Challenges: Engage the bureaus in the consistent and timely use of FAAPS to document their
planned strategic procurements. Include the procurement office in the initial stages of the planning
process.
Information Technology (IT)
Process: Major information technology assets are tracked in the Electronic Capital Planning and
Investment Control System (eCPIC) as a result of the OMB directive to populate Exhibit 300 for
major IT investments and Exhibit 53 (for all IT investments) on an annual basis. Together, these
exhibits provide a comprehensive overview of Federal IT investments across multiple agencies.
Through the submission of Exhibit 53, an agency will meet the full and accurate accounting
requirement specified by the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996. This act was established to improve the
way the federal government acquires, uses, and disposes of information technology. The exhibits
required by OMB provide the data necessary to support the processes that satisfy the requirements

of the Clinger-Cohen Act. Exhibit 300 is also known as the ―Capital Asset Plan‖ and is used to
keep track of the progress of major IT investments over time. These plans contain specific
milestones that are evaluated on a monthly basis by department staff.
eCPIC is government operated software that is used by 16 to 17 departments at a cost of $200,000
per department. The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) manages the contract for the
eCPIC project. Each operating unit or bureau is responsible for entering, managing, and evaluating
the quality of their project investment data. In addition, the CIO from each operating unit is
responsible for certifying the level of risk and the overall health of the IT investment.
Department staff has developed an internal process to identify and monitor risk across investments.
In some cases, milestones are changed two to three months after their due dates resulting in major
revisions to the project plans. This makes it very difficult for department staff to obtain a projects
baseline. In response to this difficulty, every investment is reviewed on a monthly basis looking
for variances from milestones submitted as part of the project plan. This internal process coupled
with regular meetings with bureau CIOs and project staff provide support in preparation for the
Commerce IT Review Board.
It is important to note that the information contained within the aforementioned exhibits is
available to the public through the Federal IT Dashboard (itdashboard.gov).
Challenges: There needs to be a Collaboration Site, especially across oversight boards to facilitate
data transfer and integration. The internal assessment process is short-staffed with a very rigid
reporting schedule requiring three to four data calls per month in addition to their monthly
dashboard and ad-hoc reports. In addition, technical capabilities should be integrated across
operational units when there is considerable overlap in their respective functionality requirements.
There are many functionally similar systems operating in isolation whose data needs to be
integrated to provide a holistic view of the department. However, due to their unique requirements,
they are maintained as separate systems duplicating the operating costs across the department.
Fortunately, this is a leadership issue more than a technology issue. Program managers should be
strongly encouraged to integrate whenever possible and leverage the talents and expertise of the
department as a whole.
Strategic Planning
Process: DOC has an overall strategic plan that is updated with input from all of the bureaus. The
current plan was updated in 2011 and the bureaus identified goals and resources needed to achieve
those goals. Balanced scorecards are used to manage against the plan. Bureaus send in budget
requests around the strategic goals.
Challenges: The strategic plan does not provide a prioritization among and between objectives. Yet
the DOC is often placed in the position of having to make tradeoffs. Also, it is unlikely that an
asset proposed at the Bureau level will show up at the DOC strategic planning level.
Overall challenges
Figure 3 depicts the major challenges facing efficient capital asset management at the DOC. There
is a lack of visibility and communication among the bureaus and the department and between
independent (isolated) functional units within the department. The lack of formal standardized

mandates for reporting to the department make data collection haphazard and not uniform across
areas and capital asset language is not the same. Strategic and Capital planning are approached
differently across bureaus and reflect the different themes associated with their missions (capital
planning tied to human resources vs. project).
Figure 3 – Current DOC Information Flow
Over the course of the team‘s research, the scope evolved. The issue ―…Determine what asset
information is needed…‖ became paramount to the feasibility and usefulness of creating this
portal. The ALP Team focused on the current process of the capital asset data and knowledge
needs versus the availability and movement of existing raw data to an asset management portal.

OTHER AGENCIES
As part of this project, our team reached out to Federal Agencies involved in capital asset planning
to understand the current best practices in use today across the Federal space. In addition, our team
conducted a preliminary meta-analysis of available research on best practices for planning and
designing systems to collect, store, and analyze capital project data and to report results.
Coast Guard
The Coast Guard offers a strong example of mission focused asset planning with temporal
flexibility as a function of strategic initiatives (disasters, military actions, congressional purposing,
main line authorization) stemming from their four cornerstone mission support business model(see
appendices). The four mission support cornerstones are:
1. Configuration Management
2. Total Asset Visibility
3. Bi-level Maintenance
4. Product Line Manager-single point of asset accountability
The Coast Guard process features top down command and control knowledge management based
on analysis of data bases populated at the asset product line and user level with commonly defined
metrics and resources divided and shared on a 2-Region basis. The Coast Guard started the
implementation of a centralized integrated asset management effort in 2009 at the Headquarters
level in the Mission Support Integration Office through the development of standardized capital
asset management processes and computer off the shelf tools (COTS). In 2011, the Coast Guard
moved the nexus of the integrated capital asset management effort from needs analysis, acquisition
to divestment thereof down to the logistics and field level-primarily to the product line managers.
Metrics for effective performance of capital asset management are being defined for the field by
the Mission Support Integration Office. The Asset Project office which coordinates the integration
of assets for missions, now organizationally sits in the Assistant Commandant for Acquisition
Office.
The software tools used to support the cornerstone of total asset visibility originally were COTS.
The Coast Guard sought to significantly customize the COTS, a practice they would not
recommend if they had to recreate this capital asset management business enterprise system, due to
software update and change control issues. Based on this experience Coast Guard personnel
recommends that whatever integrated capital asset management system is developed, that it be
supported by a mainstream company implementing a COTS with as little customization as
possible.
DOD
The Department of Defense was frequently cited as a good example of capital planning and
inventory. However, our research showed, that like other agencies with diverse units, the capital
planning process if very sectional. Human Resources are a priority for the Department and the
Congressional requirement for Future Years Defense Program provide DOD and Congress data on
current and planned defense resource allocations.

Veteran’s Administration
The Department of Veterans Affairs utilizes a Long Range Strategic Capital Investment Plan. The
Strategic Capital Investment Planning (SCIP) Process is an innovative Department-wide process
designed to improve the delivery of services and benefits to Veterans, their families and their
survivors with the safest and most secure infrastructure possible.
VA‘s Strategic Capital Investment Planning process is an annual process designed to capture the
full extent of VA‘s capital needs and inform the annual budget request. The SCIP process relies on
gap analyses, based on a 10-year planning horizon, to identify critical performance gaps in the
areas of safety, security, utilization, access, seismic safety, facility condition, space, parking, and
energy. Identified gaps drive the creation of a system-wide capital needs assessment that drills
down to specific regional-, network-, and facility-level capital projects and their associated
resources needed to close critical gaps.
VA requested a total of $1.3 billion in new budget authority for all construction programs. The
Strategic Capital Investment Plan (SCIP) process integrates with existing method of data collection
from Acquisition and Facilities. The IT capital-planning efforts are managed utilizing eCPIC.
Using gap analysis and projected utilization of services, SCIP identifies specific capital investment
needs to close performance gaps in the areas of safety, security, utilization, access, seismic
protection, facility condition assessments, parking and energy. The ultimate goal of the SCIP
Process is to identify necessary capital projects to close all Departmental infrastructure gaps to
support the delivery of benefits and services to Veterans. The SCIP complies with the
recommendations from the Office of Management and Budget‘s (OMB) Capital Programming
Guide. The plan fulfills OMB requirements in support of the annual budget request for capital
investments. There are five main components of the SCIP Process:
1. Gap Analysis: Access, utilization/workload, wait times, space, condition, energy, parking
deficiencies, IT deficiencies, privacy, safety, and emergency preparedness.
2. Strategic Capital Assessment: Administrative-wide strategic approach to ensure all
proposed capital investments are aligned with future Veteran needs.
3. Action Plan: Project specific investments designed to correct identified gaps.
4. Budget Formulation: A single, integrated list of the highest priority capital investment
projects for inclusion in the President‘s annual Budget submission; and
5. Feedback: Receive key internal and external stakeholders participation, review and input.
The VA launched the Office of Enterprise Asset Management (OAEM) to assume responsibility
for its capital planning efforts. The OEAM is comprised of four functions:
1. Capital Asset Policy and Planning Office - Focal point for the development of capital
assets, acquisition, management, and disposal process for all types of capital investments.
Develops capital asset policy to ensure consistency across bureaus; Investment Protocol for
proposed investments; Develop long-term capital asset plan, (components of budget office)
and vehicle for OMB submissions 53 and 300.
2. Investment and Enterprise Development Office— Provides technical assistance; tools and
training and sets program specific guidelines and investment standards.
3. Capital Asset Management Office - Establishes, analyzes, monitors, and manages the VA
portfolio of capital assets. Establishes a performance management system, set asset

utilization goals and standards for existing assets, and ensures financial integrity. Online
portal is governed by this office.
4. Green Management Program Office Assures that environmental accountability is integrated
into day-to-day actions as well as long-term planning, in accordance with Executive Order
13514.
Veterans Health Administration delivers care through 1,139 facilities composed of more than 5,202
buildings and 1,487 leases across the country many of which are located on large, campus style
settings in excess of 50 years old and approximately 30 percent of such buildings are historically
significant. VHA facilities are grouped into 21 Veteran Integrated Service Networks (VISNs).
Inpatient hospital services are provided at
153 medical centers and ambulatory care is
provided in 986 clinics, of which 833 are
community-based clinics. Contract fee care
is provided for eligible Veterans when VA
facilities are not geographically accessible,
services are not available, or
when services cannot be provided in a
timely manner. A map showing the 21
VISNs is provided below.
Overview of the VA 2013 Funding Level
The 2013 funding request provides $140.3 billion for high-quality health care, benefits, and
memorial service to our country‘s veterans. The request includes:
 $64.0 billion in discretionary funding, including medical care collections, primarily for
medical programs to provide high-quality health care for our veterans, benefits processing,
and research for conditions and diseases that affect these veterans.
 $76.4 billion for mandatory entitlement programs to provide benefits for our veterans and
their beneficiaries.
The chart illustrates the
components of VA‘s 2013
request.

Analysis of Best Practices
In order to eventually integrate the information in these various data systems – which include:
spreadsheets, customized databases, financial systems and capital project management software—
to be served through one unified data portal, some standardization between functional areas and
bureaus within DOC will have to occur. Fortunately, there is ample research that provides a
foundation for the development of a comprehensive, standardized inventory system. A detailed
listing of the asset types that should be included in a standardized inventory system, a sample
capital inventory worksheet, and inventory categories are found in the appendices. Furthermore, a
listing of the reference documents consulted during the best practices review is also found in the
appendices and should be viewed as a starting point for continuing development of the
requirements for the capital-planning portal.
Consistency and standardized language are essential to the successful integration of various data
streams into one portal and should be given special attention as this project enters its next phase.
Data accuracy and integrity, particularly because there will be interfaces between separate
information systems, will also need to be a priority, as will positional roles, including access, input
and editing privileges for system users who will be charged with compiling, analyzing and
reporting financial and management information. There is a critical need to clearly identify the
capital planning process, including positional roles and the flow of information, as recommended
by this group.

ALP Team Recommendations
Team Discovery: Improving the processes needed to support the flow of data and information
from the bureaus up to the Department and the communication between the bureaus and the
Department and among the bureaus should be the focus before building a capital asset portal.
Having effective and efficient processes in place will create data consistency, timeliness, and
enable data and information to be utilized in a manner that will result in better long range planning
and decision making. A capital asset portal cannot be effectively utilized as intended without good
processes in place.
The ELDP team completed best practice research with the Department of Veteran‘s Affairs (VA)
(see Appendices) and is recommending that DOC adopt their capital asset planning model in order
to improve processes needed to implement a capital asset planning portal. It is recommended that
implementation be applied in two phases. Phase one provides a more practical approach and could
be implemented in the very near term. Phase two will require significant resources and more time
to implement. Both phases are independent of each other and provide stakeholder value.
Phase 1 Recommendation
In order to coordinate the task of capital planning across DOC, better integrate decision making,
leverage resources across the bureaus and give the bureaus the tools to achieve their strategic
objectives, it is recommended the following occur in the near term:
1. Integrate All Capital Asset Management: Align facilities, IT, procurement, acquisitions and
budget data and information flows to ensure consistency. Utilize the Commerce Way and AIP
Framework (see Appendices). It will be necessary to engage appropriate functional resources
early on so that efficiencies can be identified and target milestones hit.
2. Identify Assets Based on Strategic Needs and Budget: Assets should be visibly linked to the
strategic mission of the Department and that capital and strategic planning be done
collaboratively rather than separately. The budget cycle can be used as a springboard for
determining asset needs. Bureaus can start at the beginning of the budget cycle 5 years out and
identify assets based on strategic needs. This approach would move planning away from a day
to day silo method for operational needs to a strategic cross agency approach. Plans can then be
tracked from the out years through the budget cycle. The Department would be able to
effectively track the hand-off between budget and acquisitions to facilities, property, and IT.
With this approach, asset projected life spans can be identified and accountable resources can
be assigned. It would also help to identify funding requests in the out years that did not result in
the procurement of an asset. An identified asset need could then be moved accordingly in to a
supporting budget request. Data gaps will be filled in over time by tracking budget requests
through the asset life span.
3. Establish DOC Enterprise Asset Management Function: A portal will only be a useful tool if it
has the appropriate human resources to organize and manage the flow of the data. Establishing
this function will require significant time investment at the beginning, but once established, it

would require consistent monitoring, but less time. The asset management function will focus
on, and provide support for the bureaus in the following areas:
a. Capital Asset Management
b. Capital Asset Policy and Planning
c. Investment and Enterprise Development
d. Green Management Program
In Phase 1, the Capital Asset Management function will focus on processes and will leverage the
existing systems and data flows. The emphasis is on strategic asset management across the
functional areas to ensure data consistency, timely data updates, and information sharing between
the Department and the Bureaus.
Figure 4 - Phase 1 Recommendation using existing systems

Phase 2 Recommendation
The second phase recommendation leverages the benefits and expected value from Phase 1 while
expanding the Department wide efficiencies via a unified data store for all Departmental assets.
Phase 2 focuses on the creation of a single data store that houses the IT, Facilities, Acquisition /
Procurement, and Budget information for each Bureau and the Department. This will replace the
existing individual systems used to track this information and provide a single repository with
different data views based on role and need. This data repository will feed information to the
internal web portal that can be used by executives at both the Department level and the Bureau
level to strategically manage the existing capital assets, and to perform What-If decision analysis
for future asset acquisitions. This single source of data will dramatically improve data consistency
and accuracy across the Bureaus and will further reduce the burden on the Bureaus of providing
information to the Department via data calls and monthly updates.
Figure 5 - Phase 2 Recommendation with integrated asset management

Roles applicable to both Phase 1 and Phase 2:
Capital Asset Management Function
 Aligns with OMB Capital Asset Planning Guidance – provides a framework for a
disciplined capital planning process that addresses project prioritization between new
and existing assets to provide the maximum return on investment.
 Integrates various administration and statutory asset management initiatives:
Government Performance Results Act, Clinger-Cohen Act, and Acquisition Reform Act
to ensure capital assets contribute to the agency strategic goals and objectives.
 Establish, analyze, monitor and manage DOC Asset Portfolio. Utilize working groups,
governance boards; establish processes, analyze and monitor DOC Assets.
Capital Asset Policy Planning
 Provides the guidance on ―how‖ we manage. Establishes consistent and standardized
processes, policies, and guidance.
 Removes the need for ad hoc reactive data calls to proactive continuous monitoring and
management of capital assets.
 Utilize gap analysis based on performance measures to focus all capital investments on
most critical needs. This is based on clearly defined standards and ongoing assessments.
o Measurements include economic growth, promoting competitiveness of
disadvantage of communities, dollar value of contracts and financing obtained,
and new jobs created. The gap is measured with the desired goal versus the
actual goal.
Investment and Enterprise Development
 Portal/tool would be managed in this function. Enterprise training (including for the
bureaus) would be required to ensure everyone is speaking the same language.
Green Management
 Assures capital asset planning (ships, satellite, IT, and other capital assets) are utilizing
green concepts.
DOC Asset Management Working Group
• Supports DOC strategic alignment.
• Defines critical decision portal requirements.
• Establishes DOC governance and oversight.
Bureau Integrated Working Group
• Comply with DOC capital asset authority.
• Establishes bureau governance and oversight.
• Supports bureau strategic alignment.

• Supports DOC critical decision portal requirements.
• Collaborates within DOC to validate detailed requirements.
Expected Value
After an initial Phase 1 implementation period, the results of an improved capital planning process
will be seen across the bureaus. This value will become more pronounced with the implementation
of Phase 2. Anticipated improvements include:
• Increased Cross-Functional Collaboration and Feedback: Significant cost savings
resulting reduced/shared capital resources and economies of scale.
• Assets and facilities capabilities better matched to Mission: Enhanced service levels
(mostly for smaller agencies).
• Ensure the Best Value assets and facilities for the DOC: Improved and more efficient use
of technology and facilities, through shared infrastructure, increased purchasing power, and
standardization across jurisdictions.
• Keep a Life Cycle Perspective: Improved communications and budgetary transparency.
• Use Information Technology Effectively: Recognize built in redundancies easily leveraged
in event of emergency/disaster response.
• Provide Top down Direction based on stakeholder input and feedback: Reduce
duplication of services and/or perception duplication of services.
• Instill Risk abatement in fabric of current assets and future procurements: Abate asset
failure and mitigate cost and time impacts on budget and mission accomplishment.
• Foster Professional Development in Asset Management: Provide right human capital in
place in DOC and Bureaus to support capital asset management.
Figure 6 – Expected Value of phased change

Next Steps – People & Portal
Next steps to implement these recommendations divide into two tracks – the Procedures (People)
and the Technology (the Portal). To be successful, the department must devote as much attention
to the procedures portion of the solution as to the IT portion because the IT Portal is only as good
as the information that goes into it. In order for these recommendations to be successful, it is
important they be implemented in a methodical manner with a commitment to the long-term
success. The roles must be clear and people must be given the necessary authority to complete
their tasks. We recommend selecting a DOC capital asset project as a prototype; using the learning
gained from following this process to shape the broader implementation across the DOC.
Procedures/People
Establish the Asset Enterprise Function with appropriate staffing and budget. The person/people
implementing this function will:
 Establish capital asset department data input reporting requirements
o Standardize capital asset data collection
o Develop a common, uniform language among the capital asset planning people
in the bureaus, ultimately improving communication and develop better
understanding among the Bureaus of the capital planning process.
 Standardize Bureaus Strategic and Capital Asset Management Processes - The Asset
Enterprise Function – in conjunction with senior leadership will lead an effort to
standardize Bureaus capital asset planning, operating, maintaining, accounting,
budgeting and divestment processes to increase cooperation and develop the ability and
desire to leverage resources.
 Concurrent with the standardization of processes this asset enterprise function will
entail the coordination of :
o An Asset Management Board: that has considered a comprehensive list of major
asset purchases/missions that require potential purchases in the near term (as
time goes on this Board can expand its temporal horizon). The AMB will be a
Headquarters level function tasked with oversight to judge performance of the
asset in view of the strategic plan. Recommendations would be forwarded to the
Acquisition Review Board, for example.
o An Integrated Planning Team: a multi-disciplined team comprised of bureau
personnel formed to address capital asset related issues that cut across traditional
program, geographic or bureau boundaries. IPTs will be established for a
specific task or purpose for a finite period of time. This team will also serve to
highlight the linkages between assets and strategic objectives.
 Develop a Scope of Work, follow procurement and acquisition of an integrated capital
asset management IT Portal development contractor, monitor and evaluate contract for
on-time and within budget performance of DOC Capital Asset Management Portal.
Marketing & Communication
An undertaking such as this is doomed for failure if it does not have a commitment from the
Bureaus. It is very important that senior leadership communicate the benefits of this process more
importantly engage the Bureaus and actively listen to their ideas. In addition, management should

strive to showcase the benefits that will result from improved capital planning and openly confront
concerns about cost cutting.
 Key people at the bureaus level should be identified and tasked with this ―marketing and
communication‖ function. They should be personnel currently handling major capital asset
management and should be involved in the development of definitions, processes and the
contractor development IT portal tool tasks noted above.
 The effort to implement a capital asset management business enterprise function and the
impact of this process on the cradle to grave management of an asset should be fully
outlined and communicated as a DOC all hands bulletin initially, as this cuts across many
bureaus and functions not previously involved.
Technology/Tools
As the Department develops the People part of this process, they can simultaneously utilize
business analysts and software developer to map and assess the existing process and gather detailed
requirements for the portal. Objectives of this mapping exercise would be to set parameters for the
assets to be tracked in this portal and select DOC projects to prototype. Per the Coast Guard
experience noted above, the tools and technology used to support the tools should be grounded in
―off the shelf‖ applications with as little customization as possible. This may have an impact on
the capital asset management processes developed and definition of data to populate the
application.
People – Sharing Best Practices
Finally – this is a real opportunity develop internal capacities and communication and to work with
other agency capital planning organizations, to exchange best practices and learn from each other.
The Department should include as part of this process the establishment of a Commerce Level
working group at staff level to monitor implementation and evaluate progress and suggest
modifications and seek to partner with agencies that have Capital Asset Planning processes in place
to share best practices and learn from each other. Both of these working groups will establish
networks and lead to the development stronger tools.
Prototype Dashboard Development
The project team took the liberty of developing a prototype dashboard integrating the various data
sets for illustrative purposes. Data from the operational units were acquired through public data
portals or with support from department staff when public data access was not available. Table 1
documents the sources of data and their respective operational units. Acquisitions data including
contracts and grants were publicly available through the USASpending.gov web site. Contract data
includes prime awards and sub-contracts as well as loans, direct payments, and insurance.
FIDO.gov is the web interface for the Federal Interagency Databases Online portal that provides
public and password-protected privileged access to the Forecasting and Advanced Acquisitions
Planning System (FAAPS). Data from this system documents the planned procurements that are in
the pipeline. Although there is a public interface, the prototype dashboard is utilizing privileged
information which contains detailed expenditures by individual procurement. The public portal
does not provide the actual dollar amounts, but rather the dollar range of the procurement. In this
case, department procurement staff was instrumental in obtaining the required data.

A similar situation occurred with the facilities data. The Federal Real Property Manager (FRPM)
is the data system used to manage owned and non-GSA leased properties within the Department of
Commerce. This system is owned by a private corporation and its use is licensed to multiple
departments within the U.S. government. Currently, department facilities management personnel
have access to enter and update data, run reports, and request ad-hoc reports on an as-needed basis.
Department staff do not have direct access to the database and must use the provided interface for
all transactions. The report used to populate the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) was used in
order to populate the dashboard for all department owned and non-GSA leased property.
Department staff extracted this information from the FRPM and provided the data to the project
team. In addition, the project team received a spreadsheet containing data on GSA leased
properties. We are not currently aware of the availability of this data to the public.
Expenditure data from information technology projects were acquired from the ITDashboard.gov
web site. This web site contains a wealth of information on IT related projects covering a variety
of perspectives including Exhibits 53 and 300, project activities, baseline histories, CIO evaluation
histories, performance metrics, and much more. For the purposes of this project we restricted our
data to Exhibits 53 and 300. While Exhibit 53 covers the breadth of IT projects within the
department, Exhibit 300 provides in-depth data for a small subset of projects. For example, the
Exhibit 53 tables contain information on 138 projects while the Exhibit 300 only covers 41. It was
determined that the data contained within Exhibit 53 was sufficient for the purpose of this
dashboard and was used as the exclusive source of IT investment data.
OPERATING UNIT DATA SOURCE ACCESS TYPE
Acquisitions USASpending.gov Public
Procurement FIDO.gov Public/Internal
Facilities FRPM/GSA Internal
Information Technology ITDashboard.gov Public/Internal
Table 1 - Sources of data supporting the prototype capital planning dashboard.
Figure 7 - Source systems feeding the USASpending.gov web site.

Figure 8 - The evolution of information from flat files to performance dashboard
Figure7 is a graphical depiction of how the source systems feed the USASpending.gov site.
This framework is similar to the one we used to create the underlying databases supporting the
performance dashboards. The data that is used throughout the prototype dashboard system
originates from Microsoft Excel or flat files although the operational data from the various
functional units is currently stored in databases. Figure 8 shows the evolution of the information
from the spreadsheet and flat file format, to the staging databases where the information from each
source is parsed out and homogenized, to the data warehouse where the multi-source data is linked
and integrated, and ultimately resulting in the performance dashboard system.
Although we utilized Microsoft products (Excel and Access) to develop this system, the
enterprise system will require a more robust architecture. The purpose of this dashboard is to make
the reader aware of the possibilities available through the thoughtful integration of data and the
development of the processes to support it. The following figures present some of the different
perspectives available within the system. Figure 9 illustrates the difference in spending by bureau

and asset type. In this figure, one can clearly see that spending on major assets exceeds non-major
by more than double. In addition, the changes between prior year, current year, and budget year
are not significantly different except in the contract and grant categories. Furthermore, the chart at
the bottom shows the relative difference in spending for each bureau by asset type. In addition, the
chart shows the average spending for each asset type for reference. It is important to note that the
bottom chart provides a dynamic interface in the upper right corner where the user can specify
which bureau they would like to see along with the selected year. In this case, ―NOAA‖,
―CENSUS‖, and ―PTO‖ have been selected for the prior year, ―PY‖
Figure 9 - Performance dashboard by asset type and bureau
In addition to looking at the relative differences among qualitative groups, one can also see the
temporal patterns within the dashboard environment. Figure 10 shows the distribution of
investments over time broken out by asset type, bureau, and year. Each of the charts is dynamic
and allows the user to select asset type, bureau, and year combinations that address their specific
needs.

Figure 10 - Performance dashboard by asset type, year and bureau
One of the nice features of a well-designed dashboard system is the ability to drill down through
the aggregation layers into the granular data to identify patterns and relationships inherent in the
underlying data streams. Figure 10 shows a some of the characteristics of the facilities database
showing the distribution of area by owned versus leased, the percentage of the department‘s
properties that are leased from GSA, and the changes to the annual facility costs over time.

Figure 11 - Performance dashboard showing facilities investments
The most important thing to understand about dashboard systems is that they are designed to
answer a specific question. The contents and components of any dashboard system are contingent
upon the question they are designed to answer. In our prototype example, the information is very
broad-based and generic. Overall trends are visible, but the true benefit is apparent when the
dashboard is developed to serve a very narrow focus. That is not to say that the underlying
database should be limited. On the contrary, the data warehouse should be as comprehensive as
possible integrating as many systems as necessary to meet the analytical and reporting
requirements of the Enterprise Asset Management team.

CONCLUSION
This White Paper is a collaborative work of a team of 8 participants in the 2013 ELDP program
tasked to build over a 2 months period an ―online portal that houses all of the relevant information
to build and maintain a capital plan for the department.‖
After extensive research on how the DOC and other U.S. government agencies manage capital
planning the team concluded that it would not be feasible to build and implement an operational
Online Portal in the given time. Instead it is presenting the recommendations for a new approach to
coordinate capital planning at the Department of Commerce that encourages two-way
communication to better inform the capital planning process and enable the decision makers to
have the best information to implement the Department of Commerce‘s strategic plan.
These recommendations are the result of interviews with senior officials in the Department of
Commerce Bureaus, Acquisitions, Information Technology (IT) and Facilities leadership, budget
and strategic planning officials in the Secretary‘s office plus extensive internet research and
reached out to other USG agencies such as the Coast Guard, Veteran‘s Affairs and the Department
of Defense.

Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the following individuals for their support throughout this project:
Department of Commerce:
Ellen Herbst
Scott Quehl
Hari Sastry
Mary Pleffner
Simon Szykman
Barry Berkowitz
Chris Heflin
Michael Phelps
Justin Meservie
Danny Sorrells
Andrew Duran
Stuart Simon
Sharon Vannucci
Stephanie Green
Virna Winters
Kirk Boykin
Peggy Leung
Julia Law
U.S. Coast Guard:
CDR Stash Romanowicz, P.E., PMP
William J. Broome, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard
CDR Rick Rodriguez, Chief, Plans & Force Readiness Division US Coast Guard District Thirteen
Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Asset Management:
Richard Sassoon, Executive Assistant, Director of the Office of Asset Enterprise Management
Michael Greenan, Director, Capital Asset Policy Planning and Strategic Service

Appendices
Appendix 1 – AIP Framework

Appendix 2 – RP4 Framework

Appendix 3 – Commerce Way

Appendix 4 – Coast Guard Cornerstone Document

Appendix 5 – Veterans Administration Organizational Chart

Appendix 6 – OMB Capital Planning Lifecycle

Appendix 7 – Inventory Best Practice Highlights
Inventory Highlights
Undertake a physical inventory and record relevant information. It is imperative that a unique
asset record be created for each individual asset. This ensures that the assets can be tracked
individually and eliminates problems that could arise if an item is disposed of or stolen. For
example, if a purchase is made for 12 computers, each computer should have its own record. If
the acquisition is entered as one purchase of 12 computers, and two break, it is impossible to
properly account for each asset. By implementing an asset inventory software solution that has
asset templates, the task of creating individual asset records is simplified, and proper accounting
can be performed. This is true of large items that are comprised of multiple components. Each
component may have a different anticipated useful life, and each can be properly tracked.
Typical Assets that should be included:
• Land & Improvements (ex: sidewalks, septic system)
• Infrastructure other than Buildings (ex: fire tower, diving platform, boat dock, fence) &
Improvements (ex: exterior lighting, security fencing, alarm system)
• Buildings & Improvements (ex: doors, windows, elevator). (NOTE on Improvements and
repairs: Improvements and repairs which allow an asset to continue to be used during its
originally established useful life, are expensed and not capitalized. Improvements and repairs,
which extend the useful life of an asset, are called preservation costs. These preservation costs
will be capitalized for all capital assets with the exception of infrastructure. Additions and
improvements, which increase the capacity or efficiency of the asset, will also be capitalized for
all assets.
• Improvements other than buildings
• Construction in Progress
• Equipment (including IT)
• Vehicles
Attachments
1. Sample capital inventory worksheet
2. Sample inventory categories

Appendix 8 – Best Practices References
Federal Real Property Council, 2008 Guidance for Real Property Inventory Reporting, June 23,
2008,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/financial/fia/2008_data_re
porting_instructions.pdf
FMCBC Recommended Practice: The Need for Inventory Systems for Capital Assets (adapted
from Tigue). 2004. www.nsmfc.ca/component/option,com...76/.../task,doc_download/
The Government Accountability Office's (GAO)‘s Executive Guide: Leading Practices in Capital
Decision Making, April 1998, http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/ai98110.pdf
The Government Accountability Office's (GAO) Information Technology Investment
Management (ITIM) Stages of Maturity, as described in GAO's May 2000 Version 1 of
the ITIM can be found at http://www.gao.gov/.
Government Finance Officers Association, Capital Improvement Programming: A Guide for
Smaller Governments, GFOA, 1996.
Government Finance Officers Association, Incorporating a Capital Project Budget in the Budget
Process, GFOA, 2007.
http://www.gfoa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1550
Government Finance Officers Association, Managing the Capital Planning Cycle: Best Practice
Examples of Effective Capital Program Management, Government Finance Review,
GFOA, 2004.
Government Finance Officers Association, Preparing High Quality Budget Documents, GFOA,
2006.
Hash, J., N. Bartol, et al., Integrating IT Security into the Capital Planning and Investment
Control Process, National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-
65, January 2005.
Indiana State Board of Accounts, Accounting and Uniform Compliance Guidelines Manual for
State and Quasi Agencies (―State Accounting Manual‖), Chapter 10, 2007.
http://www.in.gov/sboa/files/tablecon.pdf.
Marlowe, Justin, William C. Rivenbark, A. John Vogt, Capital Budgeting and Finance: A Guide
for Local Governments, ICMA, 2004.
Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Beyond Boston: A transit study for the
commonwealth, no date,
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/17/docs/beyondboston/initiatives/Initiative%206
%20Capital%20Planning.pdf

National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting, Recommended Budget Practices: A
Framework for Improved State and Local Government Budgeting, 1998.
O‘Bannon, Isaac M., ―Forecasting Capabilities Aid in Long-Term Depreciation Strategies: A
Review of Fixed Asset Software,‖ The CPA Technology Advisor, November 2004.
Office of Management and Budget, Capital Programming Guide version 2.0, June 2006.
Office of the New York State Comptroller, Division of Local Government and School
Accountability, Local Government Management Guide to Capital Assets.
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/pubs/lgmg/capital_assets.pdf
Sage Fixed Asset Inventory: A Guide to Getting Started, 2012.
http://www.weebly.com/uploads/1/1/5/9/11598498/sage_fixed_assets_-
_fixed_assets_inventory_getting_started.pdf
Sage Software, Inc. Best Practices for Fixed Asset Managers, 2007. http://www.partners-in-
tech.com/upload/PDF/FAS_Best_Practices_for_Fixed_Asset_Mgrs.pdf
Snyder, Alden, Asset Systems, Inc. Fixed Asset Inventory Best Practices, 2007.
http://www.assetsystems.com/NewsImages/Fixed-Asset-Inventory-Best-Practices.pdf
Tigue, Patricia. Government Finance Officers Association ―Inventory of Public Facilities‖
Capital Improvement Programming: a Guide for Smaller Governments. Chicago: IL,
1996. www.nsmfc.ca/component/option,com...76/.../task,doc_download/
West Virginia Department of Education, Procedures Manual for Fixed Asset Inventory System,
2001. http://wvde.state.wv.us/finance/manuals/famanrr.pdf

ELDP Capital Planning White Paper_20130130

ELDP Capital Planning White Paper_20130130

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to ELDP Capital Planning White Paper_20130130

Similar to ELDP Capital Planning White Paper_20130130 (20)

ELDP Capital Planning White Paper_20130130